This is so funny (yet tragic) I could not resist. Taken from Eugenie Scott's (an atheist) organization website:

Evolution Sunday!

Hundreds of Christian churches all over the country are taking part in Evolution Sunday, February 12, 2006. Michael Zimmerman, the initiator of the project, writes, "For far too long, strident voices, in the name of Christianity, have been claiming that people must choose between religion and modern science. More than 10,000 Christian clergy have already signed The Clergy Letter demonstrating that this is a false dichotomy. (I'll say, the choice is between Christianity and Darwinism) Now, on the 197th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, many of these leaders will bring this message to their congregations through sermons and/or discussion groups. Together, participating religious leaders will be making the statement that religion and science are not adversaries (duh). And, together, they will be elevating the quality of the national debate on this topic." At last count, 365 congregations in 49 states were scheduled to hold Evolution Sunday events; they are listed at the Clergy Letter Project website.

Evolution Sunday is the successor to Zimmerman's successful Clergy Letter Project, in which over 10,000 members of the Christian clergy signed a statement reading, in part, "We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny (until recently) and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests (balderdash). To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought (thank God) and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. ... (Amen) We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth." (That's why we have to enlist scientifically naive Pastors to support our failing paradigm)

(Obviously my comments above in bold parentheses)

Recognizing that despite years of indoctrination in public schools and the media, almost half of all Americans still reject "molecules to man", atheist evolutionists are trying a new strategy, enlisting support from scientifically naive religionists.

This is precisely what happened in the days of Galileo when the Aristotlistic Ptolemists were losing to scientists like Galileo, so they got the Church and religion involved.

The atheistic scientists are trying it again and many scientifically naive pastors are swallowing their lie (by being willing to compromise their core beliefs).

They even try to wrap the mantle of modern science around themselves in these efforts. Next we will be hearing that because we got to the Moon, have computers, cell phones and microwaves that "modern science" (i.e. "molecules to man") is never wrong and is the only way to reliable truth, hence people should accept that random "accidents" can obviously create all the marvels being uncovered in lifeforms "given enough time", because obviously given enough time "anything can happen".

Well I still love science (having done so for over 65 years), but I am beginning to get really annoyed by psuedosciences like astrology, spiritism and "molecules to man" evolution.

SCIENCE IS AGAINST EVOLUTION.

traveling man

February 12th, 2006, 09:02 AM

This is so funny I could not resist. aken from Eugenie Scott's organization website:

Recognizing that despite years of indoctrination in public schools and the media almost half of all Americand still reject "molecules to man", atheist evolutionists are trying a new strategy, enlisting support from the religionists.

This is precisely what happened in the days of Galileo when the Aristotlistic Ptolemists were losing to scientists like Galileo so they got the Church and religion involved.

The atheistic scientists are trying it again and many naive pastors are swallowing their lie.

They even try to wrap the mantle of modern science around themselves in these efforts. Next we will be hearing that because we got to the Moon, have computers, cell phones and microwaves that "science" is never wrong and hence people should accept that random "accidents" can obviously create all the marvels being uncovered in lifeforms "given enough time, because obviously given enough time "anything can happen".

Well I still love science (having done so for over 65 years), but I am beginning to get really annoyed by psuedosciences like astrology, spiritism and "molecules to man" evolution.

SCIENCE IS AGAINST EVOLUTION.

ever heard of progressive creationalism?

CapnFungi

February 12th, 2006, 09:02 AM

Evolution is "Dark-Sided"

`Love.

February 12th, 2006, 09:27 AM

That sounded like some kind of paper Hitler would force people to sign. :rolleyes:

*gets mean, serious look on face* MEIN HEIT! *raises arm*

noguru

February 12th, 2006, 11:05 AM

This is so funny (yet tragic) I could not resist. Taken from Eugenie Scott's (an atheist) organization website:

Evolution Sunday!

Hundreds of Christian churches all over the country are taking part in Evolution Sunday, February 12, 2006. Michael Zimmerman, the initiator of the project, writes, "For far too long, strident voices, in the name of Christianity, have been claiming that people must choose between religion and modern science. More than 10,000 Christian clergy have already signed The Clergy Letter demonstrating that this is a false dichotomy. (I'll say, the choice is between Christianity and Darwinism) Now, on the 197th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, many of these leaders will bring this message to their congregations through sermons and/or discussion groups. Together, participating religious leaders will be making the statement that religion and science are not adversaries (duh). And, together, they will be elevating the quality of the national debate on this topic." At last count, 365 congregations in 49 states were scheduled to hold Evolution Sunday events; they are listed at the Clergy Letter Project website.

Evolution Sunday is the successor to Zimmerman's successful Clergy Letter Project, in which over 10,000 members of the Christian clergy signed a statement reading, in part, "We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny (until recently) and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests (balderdash). To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought (thank God) and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. ... (Amen) We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth." (That's why we have to enlist scientifically naive Pastors to support our failing paradigm)

(Obviously my comments above in bold parentheses)

Recognizing that despite years of indoctrination in public schools and the media, almost half of all Americans still reject "molecules to man", atheist evolutionists are trying a new strategy, enlisting support from scientifically naive religionists.

This is precisely what happened in the days of Galileo when the Aristotlistic Ptolemists were losing to scientists like Galileo, so they got the Church and religion involved.

The atheistic scientists are trying it again and many scientifically naive pastors are swallowing their lie (by being willing to compromise their core beliefs).

They even try to wrap the mantle of modern science around themselves in these efforts. Next we will be hearing that because we got to the Moon, have computers, cell phones and microwaves that "modern science" (i.e. "molecules to man") is never wrong and is the only way to reliable truth, hence people should accept that random "accidents" can obviously create all the marvels being uncovered in lifeforms "given enough time", because obviously given enough time "anything can happen".

Well I still love science (having done so for over 65 years), but I am beginning to get really annoyed by psuedosciences like astrology, spiritism and "molecules to man" evolution.

SCIENCE IS AGAINST EVOLUTION.

Still got that love affair going with science, Bob?

Perhaps if you loved God more than science, you wouldn't become so annoyed by research programs with which you do not agree.

I find it interesting that you bold faced "core component of human knowledge" in regard to the teaching of evolution. Isn't that what science is? You know, human knowledge? Humans use science to investigate the physical universe. It is not perfect, nor is it equal to divine revelation. I mean if you would stop trying to make science out to be some perfect form of divine revelation (something that it is not), none of this would be a problem. Or maybe it is because you are trying to turn divine revelation into a material science, something that it is not? :think:

Quasar1011

February 12th, 2006, 12:19 PM

Perhaps if you loved God more than science, you wouldn't become so annoyed by research programs with which you do not agree.

I'd also get annoyed with science programs that lead people away from God. But then, I care about the eternal destination of others.

noguru

February 12th, 2006, 12:25 PM

I'd also get annoyed with science programs that lead people away from God. But then, I care about the eternal destination of others.

How do science programs lead some people away from God? Why are some people basing thier faith on science programs? :think:

To me that is like basing your faith on shifting sands.

Quasar1011

February 12th, 2006, 12:41 PM

How do science programs lead some people away from God? Why are some people basing thier faith on science programs? :think:

To me that is like basing your faith on shifting sands.

Oh come now. If evolution is true, that means there is no God. It also means that some races of men are better than others. We wound up with slavery and the Holocaust because of evolutionary dogma.

fool

February 12th, 2006, 12:47 PM

Oh come now. If evolution is true, that means there is no God. It also means that some races of men are better than others. We wound up with slavery and the Holocaust because of evolutionary dogma.
Evolution in no way detracts from God.
It does falsefy YEC of the Literal Biblical sort, but that is mearly one subset of many possible theories.
As to slavery, it's in the Bible, which came way before Darwin.
As to the Holocaust, evolutionists have no reason to be pissed at the Jews, Christians on the other hand, do.

noguru

February 12th, 2006, 01:11 PM

Oh come now. If evolution is true, that means there is no God. It also means that some races of men are better than others. We wound up with slavery and the Holocaust because of evolutionary dogma.

Quasar what universe are you in?

Evolution does not disprove God. Evolution itself makes no judgements of superiority or inferiority. Those judgements are made by humans and influenced by their culture. Actually if we knew 600 years ago what we know now about the races from an evolutionary standpoint, Europeans would not have enslaved Nubians. The Nazis accepted an irrational and twisted world philosophy. One of their core beliefs leading to the holocaust, was that all other races evolved and were animals, but that the Arian race was created seperately by God. Therefore according to the Bible the Arians had the right and the obligation to control other races as they saw fit.

There are also those YEC's who believe that being black is the mark of Cain. So this is not restricted to an old ages view of the universe. Any belief system can be twisted to support one's mistreatment of other people.

Johnny

February 12th, 2006, 02:53 PM

Oh come now. If evolution is true, that means there is no God. It also means that some races of men are better than others. We wound up with slavery and the Holocaust because of evolutionary dogma.You can thank the Christian church for that lie. And just so you know, slavery existed long before evolutionary theory.

I believe in evolution.

I believe in Jesus.

It's not one or the other. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar.

bob b

February 12th, 2006, 06:45 PM

BTW, in excess of 10,000 pastors and other religious figures have signed The Clergy Letter..

Read it and weep, so they say.

The Clergy Letter

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

I have always wondered whether Satan/Lucifer was simply a metaphor for evil, but reading such ingenious half-truths and lies as exhibited in the above prose, I may in the future have to consider his reality a bit more seriously.

noguru

February 13th, 2006, 06:12 AM

BTW, in excess of 10,000 pastors and other religious figures have signed The Clergy Letter..

Read it and weep, so they say.

I have always wondered whether Satan/Lucifer was simply a metaphor for evil, but reading such ingenious half-truths and lies as exhibited in the above prose, I may in the future have to consider his reality a bit more seriously.

That's it Bob. If you don't agree with someone accuse them (ambiguously) of being Satan. I tell you what instead of just making a claim that there are half-truths, why don't you point them out to us and explain why they are half-truths?

Wessex Man

February 13th, 2006, 06:23 AM

SCIENCE IS AGAINST EVOLUTION.
then tell me were the scientific proof is for creationism?Where outside of the bible is there a scrap of evidence for creatism.

bob b

February 13th, 2006, 09:11 PM

Some unbeliever suggested I do this so don't blame me! :)

The Clergy Letter

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook.

The old "the Bible is not a science textbook" canard (i.e. hoax). Genesis is a history of early mankind. When reading a history book we do not say "this can't be true because it doesn't employ the scientific method" do we?

Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible

A deceptive attempt to pretend that the authors of this letter (unbelievers all) love the Genesis story. It is more likely they despise it.

They certainly do, and these stories are the foundation of the Christian message, since unless mankind fell Christ's atoning sacrifice would have had no meaning.

about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation.

Many ancient religions teach long ages. Hebrew is adequate to convey such a message and ancient humans would have been able to understand it.

Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth.

Yes, truth coming from God never has to change to adapt to new scientific findings.

Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

God teaches us that it is never right to do evil that good will come of it, so believers can depend on information coming from God to be true. Recounting history is not "scientific", but it does serve to tell us what happened in the past.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist.

The timeless truth of the Genesis geneologies teach that mankind descended from Adam and Eve in the not too distant past. Mitochrondrial studies (Mitochrondrial Eve) validated the scriptural account, but despite this unbelievers still do not believe.

We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny

Actually, the "random mutations plus natural selection plus millions of years" is rapidly fading away because it is anti-science and rather useless to boot.

and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests.

The ultimate source of such a lie should be obvious to believers, because it has similarities to the one related in Genesis which led to Adam's rebellion: "You will not surely die".

To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.

How come clergy who sign this letter are being asked to endorse and validate evolution? I thought religion and science were supposed to be separate realms? ;)

We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator.

Yes, the failure to reject such an obvious fairytale as "molecules to man" amounts to a rejection of the role of the real Creator of life.

To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris.

As I mentioned before, if Adam was a metaphor and did not really fall, why do we need a plan of salvation? Use the God-given faculty of reason in that head of yours, people.

We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge.

Again the lie that evolution had anything to do with the advancement of science, when in fact it is actually an impediment, since it is so easy to invent just-so stories that "mutations dun it".

We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

I agree that scientists should dump the religious belief that "random mutations plus natural selection plus millions of years" have created all lifeforms from a hypothetical primitive protocell. God told us what He did. Why disbelieve the truth?

Repent and turn to the God who in the beginning created the universe and life in the six days in which He said He did.

I hope this analysis of The Clergy Letter satisfies the unbelievers here. ;)

aharvey

February 14th, 2006, 07:44 AM

SCIENCE IS AGAINST EVOLUTION.

Ah, bumper sticker science... I asked you about this slogan once before; (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1016091&postcount=17) if you're going to use it again, can I ask you again to respond?

bob b

February 14th, 2006, 12:27 PM

Ah, bumper sticker science... I asked you about this slogan once before; (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1016091&postcount=17) if you're going to use it again, can I ask you again to respond?

Didn't this happen to the Church some 400 years ago, and then after they took up the "cause" they eventually ended up taking the "rap". :down:

Johnny

February 14th, 2006, 05:15 PM

Branding a certain group of scientists following a certain model "heretics" has happened before.

Wessex Man

February 14th, 2006, 09:25 PM

There is no scientific proof for the creation theory at all,and whats more it is completely fanciful and goes against our God-given common sense.
To quote a great philospher;

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

aharvey

February 15th, 2006, 08:02 AM

See my posting on the METHINKS IT IS (LIKE) A WEASEL. thread.
You seem particularly enamoured with your weasel thread. Does it answer the specific questions I asked you about how you reconcile your various recent comments about science and evolution? Specifically,

If you're going to declare ultimate origins off-limits to science, then doesn't that make the most fundamental scientific question "How can we best explain what happened after that?" How can you claim science is against evolution when all it does is explain "what happened after that," you know, the part that comes after the time you specifically excluded from scientific inquiry? I can't even apply bobblogic to that: "Evolution only examines questions that are appropriate to scientific inquiry, therefore science is against evolution."

Oh wait, I see, science is against evolution because of presuppositions made by evolutionists but (it must follow) not by other scientists. So what presuppositions does evolution, alone among scientific theories, make that turns science against it?

If your weasel thread does not explictly answer these questions, then it's nothing more than a red herring ploy to direct me to it.

bob b

February 15th, 2006, 08:38 AM

You seem particularly enamoured with your weasel thread. Does it answer the specific questions I asked you about how you reconcile your various recent comments about science and evolution? Specifically,

If you're going to declare ultimate origins off-limits to science, then doesn't that make the most fundamental scientific question "How can we best explain what happened after that?" How can you claim science is against evolution when all it does is explain "what happened after that," you know, the part that comes after the time you specifically excluded from scientific inquiry? I can't even apply bobblogic to that: "Evolution only examines questions that are appropriate to scientific inquiry, therefore science is against evolution."

Oh wait, I see, science is against evolution because of presuppositions made by evolutionists but (it must follow) not by other scientists. So what presuppositions does evolution, alone among scientific theories, make that turns science against it?

You still don't "get it" do you?

Science is against evolution, because its proper employment shows that "molecules to man" is not true.

"Evolution" means many different things depending on the context in which it is being used.

[quote]If your weasel thread does not explictly answer these questions, then it's nothing more than a red herring ploy to direct me to it.

The WEASEL thread is not intended to be specific: it is more like a parable.

I direct you to it for two reasons; 1) you are one of the few unbelievers posting on this forum who have the necessary knowledge and smarts to see how profound this simple "parable" really is, and 2) I am still optimistic that despite your prior strong committment to certain ideas (illustrated by the "rising water" analogy) you can eventually uncover the truth.

dataanapar

February 15th, 2006, 08:46 AM

Isn't Atheist day coming up soon too?

aharvey

February 15th, 2006, 10:31 AM

You still don't "get it" do you?

Science is against evolution, because its proper employment shows that "molecules to man" is not true.
Sorry, bob, this statement alone tells me you understand neither science nor evolution. And after all this time, too. And what are we to make of your unrepentant, almost gleeful adoption of virtually every logical fallacy available in your anti-evolution crusade other than you will stop at nothing to convert the heathens, even if it means tricking them into believing something? I'm open to alternative explanations!

I do "get it," bob. That's why I continue the fruitless labor of calling you out every time you use the ole red herring tactic (like this post: changing the subject so you don't have to address your own self-contradictory claims), or set up a straw man (like this post, for example; equating "evolution" with "molecules to man" is something only creationists do; the rest of us understand that there is a relationship between the ideas, but they are not the same thing), or any of your various pet appeals (authority, ridicule, popularity, spite, etc.) and other games, like quote-mining and psychic parlor games (evolutionists do this because they hate God). On the other hand, you never respond to these challenges other than to continue to use the same tactics unabated, and I'm sorry but I've called you on it far too many times and matched your statements too clearly to the definitions of the fallacies for you to claim that you're ignoring them because I'm obviously wrong. Especially as around here, "obviously wrong" statements are the ones least likely to be ignored, wouldn't you say?

The WEASEL thread is not intended to be specific: it is more like a parable.
Thus leaving my original questions about how you reconcile your various statements unaddressed.

I direct you to it for two reasons; 1) you are one of the few unbelievers posting on this forum who have the necessary knowledge and smarts to see how profound this simple "parable" really is, and 2) I am still optimistic that despite your prior strong committment to certain ideas (illustrated by the "rising water" analogy) you can eventually uncover the truth.
It is my dogged determination to uncover the truth that makes your selectiveness and evasiveness so disappointing, bob. Believe it or not, I think it is in the best interests of all concerned for creationists and intelligent design advocates to bring their very strongest case to the table. Proclaiming something, no matter how loudly or boldly, is not the same as making a case for it (and please don't waste your keyboard strokes by typing that I'm just as guilty of making bold claims without ever backing them up).

bob b

February 15th, 2006, 10:36 AM

Sorry, bob, this statement alone tells me you understand neither science nor evolution. And after all this time, too. And what are we to make of your unrepentant, almost gleeful adoption of virtually every logical fallacy available in your anti-evolution crusade other than you will stop at nothing to convert the heathens, even if it means tricking them into believing something? I'm open to alternative explanations!

I do "get it," bob. That's why I continue the fruitless labor of calling you out every time you use the ole red herring tactic (like this post: changing the subject so you don't have to address your own self-contradictory claims), or set up a straw man (like this post, for example; equating "evolution" with "molecules to man" is something only creationists do; the rest of us understand that there is a relationship between the ideas, but they are not the same thing), or any of your various pet appeals (authority, ridicule, popularity, spite, etc.) and other games, like quote-mining and psychic parlor games (evolutionists do this because they hate God). On the other hand, you never respond to these challenges other than to continue to use the same tactics unabated, and I'm sorry but I've called you on it far too many times and matched your statements too clearly to the definitions of the fallacies for you to claim that you're ignoring them because I'm obviously wrong. Especially as around here, "obviously wrong" statements are the ones least likely to be ignored, wouldn't you say?

Thus leaving my original questions about how you reconcile your various statements unaddressed.

It is my dogged determination to uncover the truth that makes your selectiveness and evasiveness so disappointing, bob. Believe it or not, I think it is in the best interests of all concerned for creationists and intelligent design advocates to bring their very strongest case to the table. Proclaiming something, no matter how loudly or boldly, is not the same as making a case for it (and please don't waste your keyboard strokes by typing that I'm just as guilty of making bold claims without ever backing them up).

I am still hopeful that the parable will enter your subconscious and someday cause you to announce Eureka.

Bob Enyart

February 15th, 2006, 10:53 AM

Hey Bob B, you might have missed this at KGOV (http://KGOV.com), but prompted by your Evolution Sunday thread, at Denver Bible Church, we did this:

And that led to this fun thread (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25730) and at post 12, CuratorExists Questions 1 & 2 to Johnny, Jukia, and ThePhy, and CEQ2 they have so far not answered.

-Bob

ps. Those questions are:

CuratorExistsQ1: To Jukia, Johnny, Phy (each separately): Can you, without equivocation, indicate whether or not you exist?

So far, Jukia & Phy answered: Yes, they acknowledge that they exist. (But Phy went on to indicate that such an answer is not straightforward, as I assume.) And no answers so far from any of the three to these:

CuratorExistsQ2: To Jukia, Johnny, Phy: If my report is accurate (that curator of the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, Dr. Kirk Johnson, when asked repeatedly, could not affirm that he exists), does this undermine Dr. Johnson's credibility as a scientist?

CuratorExistsQ2a: If Doctor Kirk cannot affirm his own existence without equivocation, does this undermine his credibility as a scientist?

CuratorExistsQ2b: If any scientist cannot affirm his own existence without equivocation, does this undermine his credibility as a scientist?
Please circle one: Yes / No / I don't know

then tell me were the scientific proof is for creationism?Where outside of the bible is there a scrap of evidence for creatism.

---How does the Dandelion know to put fluff on its seeds so they can travel with the MOVING WIND??? - The Cattail, the Milk Weed does the same, along with dozens of other plants. --- How do all the different types of Burs and Beggar Lice, know to put little hooks on its seed to catch hold of any passing Animals??? – How do the Pine trees, and the Maple trees, and the Box Elder trees know to put wings on their seeds to catch the wind??? – How do these plants KNOW that the air MOVES??? - Or that an animal may pass by??? – NO, -- that’s knowledge, Knowledge is taught, not guessed at.
*
--------------Paul---
*